Sri Srikantham Vijay Kumar Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Srikantham Vijay Kumar Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Endorsement dated 02.04.2025 quashed; application restored; second respondent directed to hold an enquiry under Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules on whether the correction is a formal error, and to decide the application within four weeks of the petitioner filing a certified copy of the Order (liberty to file within two weeks).

Issue for consideration

Whether the Endorsement dated 02-04-2025 (No. Y.Z/B.D/P.R/23/25-26) issued by the second respondent, refusing correction of the petitioner's name in his daughter's Birth Certificate, ought to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 permits the Registrar to correct a formal error after an enquiry if satisfied about the nature of the error; the second respondent had not noticed this provision when issuing the Endorsement.

Ratio / Principle

The Endorsement dated 02.04.2025 must be quashed and the application restored, directing the second respondent (the delegated authority for the Registrar for the purposes of Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules) to hold an enquiry on whether the description of the petitioner's name as 'S. Vijay Kumar' in the Birth Certificate of his daughter, Ms. Thanu V, would be a formal error correctable under Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed directing the second respondent accordingly; the petitioner is reserved liberty to file a certified copy of the Order within two [2] weeks of receiving it, and the second respondent is called upon to decide on such application within four [4] weeks of receipt thereof.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (B M Shyam Prasad J., 11 June 2026) allowed Writ Petition No. 17356 of 2026 (LB-BMP) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought correction of the father's name entry from 'S. Vijay Kumar' to 'Srikantham Vijay Kumar' in the Birth Certificate of his daughter, Ms. Thanu V. The Assistant Director, B.B.M.P. Yelahanka (second respondent), by Endorsement dated 02-04-2025 (No. Y.Z/B.D/P.R/23/25-26), refused the correction as impermissible under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Holding that the second respondent had not noticed Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, which permits the Registrar to correct a formal error after an enquiry if satisfied about the nature of the error, the Court quashed the Endorsement, restored the application, and directed the second respondent, as the delegated authority for the Registrar under Rule 11, to hold an enquiry on whether the entry is a formal error correctable under that Rule. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a certified copy of the Order and the second respondent four weeks thereafter to decide the application.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28316 WP No. 17356 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17356 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRIKANTHAM VIJAY KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O. SRIKANTHAM PRAKASH RESIDING AT NO.170, 2ND CROSS, B.K. LAYOUT, THINDLU, NEAR BUS STOP, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR REDDY V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560002

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28316 WP No. 17356 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

B.B.M.P. YELAHANAKA BENGALURU-560064

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED. 02-04-2025 VIDE NO. Y.Z/B.D/P.R/23/25-26 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AND DOCUMENT AT ANNEXURRE-A; ISSUE THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF PETITIONER FROM S. VIJAY KUMAR TO SRIKANTHAM VIJAY KUMAR IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER’S DAUGHTER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28316 WP No. 17356 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has applied for change of entries in the Birth Certificate issued for his daughter, Ms. Thanu V. The Birth Certificate entries read that her father is " S. Vijay Kumar ". The petitioner also calls himself 'Srikantham Vijay Kumar' with "S" standing for 'Srikantham' in the entry as found in the Birth Certificate. The second respondent has issued the Endorsement saying that this correction from 'S. Vijay Kumar' to 'Srikantham Vijay Kumar' cannot be permitted under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [for short, ' the Act' ].

Mr. V. Rajashekar Reddy, the learned

counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Pawan Kumar, a learned Standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard. The second respondent has not noticed the provisions of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 [for short, ' the 1999 Rules' ]. This

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28316 WP No. 17356 of 2026

HC-KAR

Rule permits the Registrar to correct a formal error after an enquiry if satisfied about the nature of the error.

This Court is of the view that the

Endorsement dated 02.04.2025 must be quashed and the application restored directing the second respondent [ the delegated authority for the Registrar for the purposes of Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules ] to hold an enquiry on whether the description of the petitioner's name as 'S. Vijay Kumar' in the Birth Certificate of his daughter, Ms. Thanu V to 'Srikantham Vijay Kumar' would be a formal error that could be corrected under Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules.

Therefore, the petition is allowed directing the second respondent accordingly. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, and the second

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28316 WP No. 17356 of 2026

HC-KAR

respondent is called upon to decide on such application within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

RB